Post on 16-Jan-2016
1.2. Livestock for Development
Simon Oosting, Animal Production Systems
see article in reader: Impact of intensification .... smallholders
Future Livestock Systems
high-tech
multifunct.landuse
intensification
comm.p&p
dairying
smallholder
dairy, p&p
ranching
mixed farming
pastoralism
free-range p&p
EUDev. Countries, NIC’s
sustainable
conventional systems
organic
farming
social care farming
nature
farming
hobby
intensification
What can livestock do for development?
Arguments for livestock development:
global food needs, wealthier consumers or
better livelihoods of the poor?
Both?
Benefits of livestock for a household
Cattle on mixed farms, East Java
Progeny
Manure
Draught
Weight increase
Insurance
finance
• labour productivity comparable to crops and off-farm work
• functions can be exclusive and conflicting
Feed use in mixed farms, East Java
Sugarcane & annuals Agroforestry & annuals
Feeds fed: cassava leaves legumes sugarcane forage - native grasses elephant grass straws
maintenance
quality
maintenance
milktraction
gain
Net Energy use:
Benefits of Livestock
feed use as % of total available feeds
production
total benefits
meat
100 %50
feed quality
herd size
co-products biofuel production
To understand decision making of the farmers allocation of resources decisions not at optimum biological moment
Smallholders more productive than often assumed
Livestock and Development
Cows or chickens?
How does intensification work out?
Livestock Revolution helps or hinders smallholder mixed farmers?
Free-grazing Zero-grazing
Drivers: demands and the reduced land sizes
Smallholder dairying, Kenya
Intensification
Smallholder dairying and Markets
Zambiaextensive grazing system
Sri Lankacattle under coconuts
Kenyazero-grazing intensive dairying
Total annual income PPP$
1345 1456 2973
Cash income % 22 75 59
Income in kind % 41 16 33
Intangible benefits % 37 9 8
Labour productivity d-1 15 15 12PPP$: purchasing power parity $
• Labour productivity higher than for crops or wage labour
• Market major pull factor for dairy development in Kenya
Moll et al., 2007
Smallholder dairying, Kenya
600 000 households in dairying
Cattle major income source, 1073 $ y-1 total benefits
Smallholders 75% of the milk market
Kenya exports milk products
Smallholder dairying is competitive, family labour, less investments
compared with large commercial farms
Hh with cattle own twice as much land as hh without cattle
Some other hh specialise in selling forages
Cattle in developing countries
Dairying gives substantial income improvement
Dairying most successful in countries with strong dairy traditions
Not for the really poor households
Feed the main on-farm constraint
Milk production 5-6 kg d-1
Calving rates (25-50%) are too low to maintain herds
Frequent buying and selling in smallholder herds
Major reason for selling is urgent cash need
Small Ruminants
Sheep and goat farmers among the poorer groups in society
Tool in poverty alleviation or
Sign of poverty?
Small Ruminants, Indonesia
Intensification:
change in management system, other breeds, increase in numbers
Drivers: National level: government policies, crises Regional and agro-ecosystem level: intensification land use Household level: family labour available, capital
Small Ruminants, Indonesia
Total benefits: 125-160 $ per hh y-1
3.5-4.2 h d-1 for 4-6 animals
Labour productivity below minimum wage level
Important for urgent cash needs: start school year, preparation paddy
fields
Religious festivities, manure
Ground water pollution
Sheep just as productive as goats; development focus on goats
Small Ruminants, Indonesia
Improvement scenario’s:
fattening for religious festivities
breeding goats for sale of breeding stock
economic results improve considerably, but labour productivity still below
minimum wage level
Farmers do not consider the family labour as real costs
An appreciated secondary activity
Pigs
Renewed interest in pigs
Intensification
Pigs
Intensification in Asia due to increasing demands
Intensification through compound feeds and hybrids
Vietnam; income 80-220 $ y-1 hh
Not for all households: resources available
other options
distance to markets
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
2002 2004
Perc
enta
geRice
Fish
Orchard
Pigs
Cash crops
Poultry
GM’s of 80 hh’s Mekong Delta
Environmental Impact Food Production MD
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Rice Fruits Vegetables Pigs Poultry Fish
%
Land-use
Energy use
GWP
EP
AP
Environmental impact pigs per farm mainly
due to off-farm feed production
Integrated systems
Village Poultry, Ethiopia
‘Poultry are the first and last resource of the
poor’
Poor, in particular women headed hh’s own
poultry only
Benefits from poultry about 70 $ y-1
Village poultry important for poor women
Village poultry: the problem and some solutions
Intensification
Village poultry innovations; does it work?
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
base NCD house feed cr br brood
birr
benefits costs returns
Economic results innovations for Tigray, Ethiopia
Bangladesh Poultry Model
The prominent example of credit for the poor Commercial poultry principles Women, 10 laying commercial hens: 100 $ y-1
2 million women 28% hh’s moved above poverty line Poultry 23% of income, egg consumption increased Package:
producers
hatcheries rearers
feeds
vaccinators
egg collectorsApplicable in other countries?
Commercial poultry units
Large- or small-scale?
Need cash inputs, labour
Market-oriented
Competition with other farmers
Competition with imports
Markets easily collapse
due to economic crises or imports
Livestock ladder
Hh decisions:
• production factors
• life cycle hh
• prices
Access to Livestock Technologies
Own resources
Sharing: cattle to chickens
Micro-credit, 20% to 60-80% on livestock
‘Passing on the Gift’
Example: Heifer International (www.heifer.nl)
128 countries
• Heifer @ € 450
• Goat € 115
• Chicken flock € 22.50
Micro-credit and Passing-on-the-gift
Repayment with heifer(s) is (too) difficult
Tanzania: after 7 years only 20% of the hh had returned a heifer
Vietnam: cows often sold before giving a calf due to urgent cash
needs
Easy to return goat kids or weaner pigs
Poultry fit very well in passing-on-the-gift programmes
Livestock Development: cows or chickens?
dairy cattle
local cattle
pigs, sheep, goats
comm. poultry village poultry
small-scale
- Returns
- Paying back
animals/loans
- Helping the
poor
Livestock and Development
Livestock revolution helps or hinders smallholders?
Industrial systems are growing twice as fast as mixed farming
Asia: industrial systems account for 80% of the production increases
Smallholders need support to enter the market
• Credit
• Services
• Farmers’ groups
• Knowledge, farmers, development workers, policy makers
• Household resources: cash, family labour, land, feeds
Livestock and Development
Pro-poor policies Household the focal point, not a specific sector
Small animals as starter in the development process
Dairying a good income generator
Livestock and Development
Intensification: increase in production for the market
Increased use of purchased inputs
less attention to other livelihood functions, resilience?
competition with other smallholders and large-scale producers
globalisation
environmental impact
part of the smallholders will be excluded: ‘moving out’
others can ‘step up’ or will ‘hang in’
What can we do for development?
Arguments for livestock development:
• global food needs, wealthier consumers or
• better livelihoods of the poor?